SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Week 123 - Stalker

Discussion in 'Mayberry Lounge' started by jei, Sep 12, 2018.

  1. moreorless87

    moreorless87 Under Your Skin

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    30,228
    Likes Received:
    15,423
    I have been meaning to pick that up at some point, recorded in an arthouse cinema lobby wasn't it? both I think benefit from having a long attension span and are experienced in a rather trance like way, probably best late at night.
     
    sh1tehawke likes this.
  2. sh1tehawke

    sh1tehawke Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,335
    Likes Received:
    867
    Location:
    inventing snooker
    Yeah that's right, at an event called "an evening of contemporary sitar". The whole book is hilarious, you should defo pick it up as a Spaceman fan.
     
  3. moreorless87

    moreorless87 Under Your Skin

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    30,228
    Likes Received:
    15,423
    Probably best coming from more of a third person rather than Jason or Sonic I spose.
     
  4. sickc0d3r

    sickc0d3r Black Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,942
    Likes Received:
    4,681
    Location:
    Wet with salvation
    From the descriptions of eyewitnesses the filming must have been brutal for the participants. Not to mention they had to re-shoot the whole damn thing, except for this dream scene I think, which was filmed by the original camera guy and somehow recovered.


    Not to mention all the people that perished from cancer after they had to move the set to Estonia.

    It definitely feels that way. And the first twenty minutes looks like a cold war inspired escape from totalitarian oppression.

    But the magical element leads me to believe it is meant to be something more ethereal than that. Tarkovsky said once he believed the Zone was a product of the Stalker's imagination. He even considered an alternate ending revealing this. Everything that happened came from his mind, which would explain things like the voice commanding Writer to stop before entering the building. I wonder if every trap they "avoided" simply didn't exist as long as Stalker didn't imagine it? We know he passed telekinesis on to his daughter.

    On the other hand, it would make sense that the telephone came from Professor's imagination. Having reached the Room, I'm sure he wanted boast to his adversary. Voila, here's a phone, compliments of the Zone!

    On that adversary, I wonder if it is the same Professor mentioned in the opening scroll? Or if Professor is that guy?
    "...What was it? Did a meteor fall down? Was it a visit by citizens of the vast space? So or otherwise in our little country appeared the greatest miracle of miracles – the ZONE. We sent there the troops immediately. They did not come back. Then we surrounded the ZONE with police cordons... And, I suppose, that was the right thing to do... Actually, I don’t know, I don’t know... From an interview with Professor Wallace, the receiver of Nobel’s prize, by a journalist of RAI."


    Time was a major theme. The first line of dialogue in the movie was his wife saying "why did you take my watch?". She then goes on to say how he has grown old and he has stolen her best years from her.



    Several conversations implied he might have been "chosen by God". Stalker said this:
    "And that day two ... of them... ...went to a village about sixty stadia away ... and talking together about all these events, and when they were talking and discussing it together ... and He came up to them, went with them, but their eyes were held, so that they did not recognize Him. He asked though, what they were (sighs) all the time talking together about and why they were so sad. One of them, called..."
    While Writer and Professor looked at him with kind of a reverent gaze:
    [​IMG]

    And this voice in the dream sequence (which was his wife speaking):
    "WIFE: And there an immense earthquake took place, and the Sun became dark as sack cloth, and the Moon was like covered with blood... (Stalker with closed eyes (sepia).) ...And the stars of the heaven fell to the ground as if a fig-tree, shaken by a great wind, let its unripe figs fall down. And the sky hid itself, rolled up as a scroll; and various hills and isles moved from their places (laughs)... And the kings on earth, and the dignitaries, and the rich, and leaders of the thousands, and the powerful, and all the free hid themselves in the caves and mountain-gorges and they told the mountains and the rocks: fall on us and hide us from the face of the One sitting on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of His wrath is come, and who can withstand it? (Laughter.) "

    Exactly. Stalker believes only the truly unhappy can make it through, which probably means the mind creates everything they are experiencing, and ultimately determines the outcome if they enter the Room.

    In the final scene it seems like maybe Stalker has never seen anyone actually make it through and go inside.
    "And nobody believes. Not only those two. Nobody! Whom should I lead in there? Oh, God... And the most terrifying thing is ... that nobody needs it anymore. And nobody needs that Room. And all my efforts are worthless!"
     
    Yotsuya, MusterX and Cubo de Sangre like this.
  5. sickc0d3r

    sickc0d3r Black Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,942
    Likes Received:
    4,681
    Location:
    Wet with salvation
    I would have a hard time classifying it as sci-fi, personally. It's more like a psychological drama or something. All the "magic" they talked about existing in the Zone was never actually seen. We had to take it all on faith based on Stalker's eye witness accounts. The best evidence of something paranormal was the telephone. And the scene with the bird strangely disappearing:


    That is until the ending, which makes you rethink everything you watched and believe all the magical elements existed. Plus, it had a scientist and a fiction writer. What's more sci-fi than that!
     
  6. moreorless87

    moreorless87 Under Your Skin

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    30,228
    Likes Received:
    15,423
    We deliberately don't get any kind of scientific explantion of course but still the concept itself I think falls broadly within that realm and it is obviously treated with a good deal of depth. Besides the bird(I maybe an influence on the Matrix's repeated cat?) you also have those glowing coals by the side of the river and whatever it is that briefly falls across the doorway as Writer desides to make his own way earlier on.
     
    sickc0d3r likes this.
  7. moreorless87

    moreorless87 Under Your Skin

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    30,228
    Likes Received:
    15,423
    We do see the Stalker mention that the zone "wakes up" when people enter it so the idea it was being built partly by the minds of those entraining it could be said it still be hinted at.

    I have always wondered at the significance of the nuts, I remember on an old copy I had were the image quality was poor I actually thought they were organic nuts as some kind of natural symbol/ward but mechanical nuts seems almost the opposite, as a symbol of technology the zone is antagonist towards so it would set off a trap perhaps?

    As with Solaris though its notable that whilst generally characters seem more Russian you have a western name in Professor Wallace hitting that the cold war isn't still in operation. Whether the professor in the film is the one giving this quite I'v never been sure but I think your likely ment to relate the two, perhaps this quote comes from him after the events of the film?

    The Stalker himself always gives me the feeling of a mystic or shamen leading people on a spiritual quest.

    I think his most interesting philosophy is the talk about strength and rigidity as a symbol of death and weakness and flexability as a sign of life. You could relate it to people becoming less open minded as they age but perhaps also relating back to his religious nature? To me the talk of strength and rigidity feels more like a masculine force to control the world where as weakness and flexability feels more like a feminine force to live within it, the first arguably relating more to modern religions like Christianity in which the world is created to man and the second more to older Pagan religions with there earth goddesses looking to have humans live within the world.

    I do find it interesting that Tarkovsky's films tended to have mostly male major roles besides Hari in Solaris yet his lead characters are IMHO all you could argue who are not very masculine.
    "How about a little music?"
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2018 at 12:22 PM
    sickc0d3r likes this.
  8. sickc0d3r

    sickc0d3r Black Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,942
    Likes Received:
    4,681
    Location:
    Wet with salvation
    Aahhhh, good one. A little Deja Vu. Maybe the theme of Time popping up again.

    That's one of the things about the movie I was referring to when I said it doesn't often bother to explain itself. Hey, we gotta chuck these nuts with gauze attached ahead of us before we walk anywhere or we'll run into a trap. Obviously!

    Your explanation is as good as any. Certainly the sepia reality exists in a mechanical world, and the Zone likes to swallow man made contraptions into its oily, watery bowels. I noticed the Stalker pushed the Writer's pistol gently into the water. Also, the only threats to the Zone seemed to be human technology, like the Professor's bomb.

    I think it also touches on Buddhism. One of the four noble truths is that desire and ignorance lie at the root of suffering.
    The Stalker talks about this concept here:
    "Let it come true what has been planned. Let they believe. And let they laugh at their passions; for what they call a passion is only a friction between the soul and the outer world. And above all, let they believe in themselves and become helpless as children, because weakness is great and strength is worthless..."
     
  9. moreorless87

    moreorless87 Under Your Skin

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    30,228
    Likes Received:
    15,423
    That certainly gives the impression as Water being a strong representation of the substance of the Zone itself swallowing and neutralising human influence, in the long tracking shot you have under the water the thing I can recognise...

    Syringe - Medical Advancements? Drugs?
    Silver Tray - General Privilege?
    Photograph/painting of some trees - Art?
    Bowl of fish - Humans using animals?
    Religious Icon & Money - Religion and the State? large scale religion?
    Gun - War or Violence?
    Clock - Time or measurement of it? science generally?
    Ticket - Reference to Cinema itself?
    Yeah definitely, even if you look at Andrei Rublev with its obvious Christian setting its really not very dogmatic either, someone who I think was prepaired to look beyond his background into general spirituality.
     
    Yotsuya and sickc0d3r like this.
  10. Bullitt68

    Bullitt68 Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    24,395
    Likes Received:
    2,370
    Ok, I'm going to start by saying something that I've said more times on here over the years than I could possibly count: Andrei Tarkovsky was born 50 years too late. He really should've come up during the silent era (and I'm not just saying that to prime us for @Yotsuya's silent week next week :D). His visual sensibilities, his compositions and his camera movements, would've been right at home in the 20s alongside the sweeping camera of Murnau and the strict compositions of Lang, and honestly he probably would've been able to blow their shit off the screen. In the sound era, however, he tries to go beyond being a visual artist to being a poet-cum-philosopher and he sucks at it. Like, really sucks. It's unbearable listening to his idiot philosophy dialogue. He's at his best, and his films are at their best, when there's no dialogue and it's all about the visuals, about the sound, and about the general mood.

    Now, having said that, for this week, super nerd that I am, I couldn't just pop in Stalker. I haven't seen any Tarkovsky movies in almost ten years, so I needed to at least refresh my memory on his prior sci-fi effort. I had to rewatch Solaris first, and man, what a surprise that was: That movie's pretty terrible. Back in the day, I used to think that that and Ivan's Childhood were his best films, but Jesus, Solaris is not very good at all. Stalker, on the other hand, has continued to grow in my esteem. I have both Ivan's Childhood and Andrei Rublev with me and I plan on rewatching those over the weekend, so I can't say what my current Tarkovsky rankings look like, but between Solaris and Stalker, that shit ain't even close.

    Obviously, there are tremendous similarities between the two films, not least because they're from the same filmmaker in the same genre from the same decade. But the differences are the keys to Stalker's superiority. First and foremost, I believe the characters. The characters in Solaris were laughably cartoonish save for Kelvin, who was just a jackass who, due to the weak script and the worse acting, didn't manage to produce a single genuine moment in three hours, and Hari, who wasn't anything to write home about. In Stalker, on the other hand, the trio Stalker, Writer, and Professor is great. As I said, Tarkovsky's a terrible poet/philosopher, so some of Writer's lines had me cringing, but psychologically-speaking, I get and buy that character. Same for Professor. And Stalker is probably Tarkovsky's best single character, even better than Ivan (at least from memory; we'll see what the weekend brings).

    If you went through Tarkovsky's whole filmography, you'd be able to trace a theme that you could label nihilism but that I think would be more accurately labeled despair. I don't remember the horrendously boring Andrei Rublev, so I don't know if/how that one fits, but Ivan's Childhood, Solaris, and Stalker all seem to feature reflections - from the characters within the films and from Tarkovsky with the films - on (a) the unnoticed presence of beauty even in the midst of sadness/horror (the ending of Ivan's Childhood is one of the GOAT endings and as tragic as it is beautiful, Solaris has some tender moments despite its general fucked up-ness, and Stalker is essentially about finding beauty and serenity amidst sadness and devastation) and (b) the loss of hope because beauty is so rarely noticed. Stalker is the zenith as far as this theme goes, and Stalker's breakdown near the end is one of the few genuinely moving pieces of dialogue in a Tarkovsky film.

    Having said all of that, the film definitely didn't need to be north of 2.5 hours. Tarkovsky could've easily done what he did in 90 minutes. And probably should've. In a way, the languid pacing let's you off the emotional hook, so to speak. Writer will say something telling, or Stalker will tap into something profound...and then there'll be a four-minute tracking shot that's not just superfluous but actually counterproductive. We get it, Andrei. Slowness is your thing. But come on. Kubrick loved zooms, but not every shot is a fucking zoom. Scorsese loves slow-motion, but not every shot is in fucking slow-motion. Tarkovsky does the slow thing, I get it, but not everything has to be so glacially slow. And Stalker in particular didn't lend itself to that kind of pacing. Stalker has a trance-like atmosphere and there's a sense at key moments of almost gliding or floating like a spirit through the Zone. That's what Tarkovsky should've zeroed-in on and amplified. Instead, he'd often snuff that out with boredom-inducing nothing shots and kill the mood.

    Still, though, I've come to really appreciate Stalker on the whole. It's not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination - Tarkovsky doesn't have a single masterpiece to his credit, hence my claim that he's massively overrated; the man is nowhere near the league that the Kubricks, the Hitchcocks, and the Bergmans were playing in - but it's a damn good movie and I'm glad I got the chance to rewatch it.

    @Cubo de Sangre and @Tufts, it's taken me ten years and three viewings to come around the way that I have on Stalker. Obviously, you're not compelled to give it another shot down the road, but I'd recommend it as a viewing experiment if not as a genuine investment in Tarkovsky's work.

    [​IMG]

    Normally, that shit pisses me off. It even kind of pissed me off in Solaris, which I felt was seriously lacking in imagination/inspiration. But in Stalker the mystery angle is integrated well with the hope/faith angle.

    More than the ambient noise, I love the theme song entitled "Meditation."



    [​IMG]

    That doesn't require much intellectual stretching I don't think. They get at it pretty explicitly with the whole "innermost" conversation. Plus, there's this crock from Writer:

    "How would I know the right word for what I want? How would I know that actually I don't want what I want? Or that I actually don't want what I don't want? They are elusive things: the moment we name them, their meaning disappears, melts, dissolves like a jellyfish in the sun. My conscience wants vegetarianism to win over the world. And my subconscious is yearning for a piece of juicy meat. But what do I want?"

    This type of bullshit ("nothing means anything," or "we can't know anything," or whatever) is motivated by fear, and it's the worst kind of fear: The fear of knowing yourself. "Know thyself" isn't just self-help drivel. It's the ultimate moral imperative. It's also the scariest thing imaginable for some people. In his book The Undiscovered Self, Jung wrote that, in his estimation, "the devaluation of the psyche and other resistances to psychological enlightenment are based in large measure on fear - on panic fear of the discoveries that might be made in the realm of the unconscious." That's what we're dealing with in Stalker IMO. Hope requires a certain kind of bravery, a willingness to move forward and go for something. Fear and hope are mutually exclusive. In Writer's case, he's a man consumed with fear, so of course he's the most hopeless.

    Professor wasn't as fleshed out (a weakness in Tarkovsky's script IMO), so it's not as clear-cut, but it's still evident based on his just going along with Writer and not entering the room that he let his fear - maybe fear that he's not as good/righteous a person as he thought he was, showing up with that bomb to "protect" everybody - make the call.

    Stalker, then, is the one who, to use a colloquialism, you could say had "a healthy fear" of the Zone, but, more accurately, Stalker knew the Zone, he had faith in his ability to navigate the Zone, and so he had no reason to be afraid. However, by film's end, at which point he'd fallen into despair, he'd become fearful, doubting that the Room would work for his wife. Where's his faith regarding the person with whom he should be the closest and therefore about whom he should have the least doubt? He preached the value of weakness, but it's because he's weak and afraid - and fear is obviously a variety of weakness - that he's in despair.

    That last scene pisses me off. I don't like random nonsense like that which is the definition of inexplicable.

    That's nothing compared to Kubrick having BNCs fitted with NASA lenses - in short, creating his own personal supercamera - so that he could shoot Barry Lyndon by candlelight :eek::eek:

    I definitely get this vibe, too, but I wouldn't say that it's a theme. It's more like the inspiration or the impetus. Tarkovsky pretty clearly goes beyond anything man-made/Earthly, including anything nuclear.

    Dead Man is a good call. And, as Tarkovsky had in Stalker, Jarmusch had a recurring piece of music to get you and keep you in the mood.



    For other non-Tarkovsky examples of meditative films - all of which also have exquisite music, which is something of a prerequisite for hitting that meditative level - I'd nominate 2001 (duh), Once Upon a Time in America (more dreamlike than meditative on the whole but in parts it's definitely meditative), and Werckmeister Harmonies.

    Hmm. It's interesting that you're kind of going Zone-to-characters whereas I'd go characters-to-Zone. In other words, whereas you say that Stalker's daughter "has something of the spiritual magic of the Zone within her," I'd want to say that she and her father have something of the spiritual magic within them that is necessary to appreciate/get the most out of/what have you the Zone.

    Now, that's on the thematic level. On the dramatic level, if the Zone really was the product of a meteor or nuclear fallout and Stalker was genetically altered and produced a genetically altered offspring, then there's a direct (as opposed to thematic/allegorical) link. The fact that that's murky is, IMO, another knock on Tarkovsky's script. But it's interesting enough to think about to where I don't think that it does serious damage.

    And, once again, non-believing sinner that I am, I'd want to say something like "the Kingdom of God is within," meaning that it's not the actual, physical place (Eden, Heaven, the Zone, what have you) that's the key but the state of mind/spirit that's the key and that the Zone as a place helps (the way that for some people going to yoga helps) people tap into that.

    I'm with you on all of this except the daughter part. Tarkovsky left that shit too WTF to say anything as concrete as this and for anything that happens to be tied to her in any definitive way.

    Chinatown will always suck, but Stalker's not a bad piece of cinema ;)

    Maybe it's just me, but I can hear Rutger Hauer's voice in those lines from Writer that I quoted earlier.

    "They are elusive things: the moment we name them, their meaning disappears, melts, dissolves, like a jellyfish in the sun."

    "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."

    Then again, it could just be the presence of similes :D

    Good point. In Solaris, there's the back-and-forth about how: "Knowledge is only valid when it's based on morality"/"Man is the one who renders science moral or immoral"/"Then don't make science immoral." In Stalker, it's more in the vein of: If the world is our oyster then we need to cultivate our appetites to truly appreciate it.

    Which makes no fucking sense. And that this is nonsensical seems to be confirmed by the fact that neither the wretched Writer nor the wretched Professor enter the Room. It's not because they're not wretched that they don't enter the Room; it's because they're wretched. What's more, it's on this trip that they both seem to come to the realization that they're wretched and how wretched they are.

    How that squares with the "logic" of the Zone and/or the Room, I have no idea. But that shit from Stalker about the wretched and the weak and all the rest of it has never made sense to me and seems to be flatly contradicted by the film itself.

    BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL WRETCHED!!!!!!!!!

    I don't think that there's any actual creating going on on the parts of those in the Zone any more than there's any actual creating going on on the parts of the crew orbiting Solaris. Rather, there's a response from the Ocean/the Zone that I analogize in my head to the effect that observation has on particle behavior. Only, in Solaris and Stalker, the Ocean/Zone seem, unlike electrons, to be sentient if not conscious.

    It's always seemed pretty straightforward to me: Since "everything is always changing" in the Zone, going from nut to nut keeps the perceptual field intact and precludes the kind of insane spatial dislocation that Stalker and Writer experience with Professor during the knapsack fiasco.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2018 at 5:56 PM
    Cubo de Sangre likes this.
  11. Cubo de Sangre

    Cubo de Sangre Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2014
    Messages:
    31,691
    Likes Received:
    28,958
    Location:
    Hell

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Bullitt68

    Bullitt68 Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    24,395
    Likes Received:
    2,370
    [​IMG]
     
    Cubo de Sangre likes this.
  13. Cubo de Sangre

    Cubo de Sangre Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2014
    Messages:
    31,691
    Likes Received:
    28,958
    Location:
    Hell

     
  14. moreorless87

    moreorless87 Under Your Skin

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    30,228
    Likes Received:
    15,423
    I'd say the intension is for the viewing experience itself to mirror the message, personal taste I spose but I do think the visuals are very effective at achieving this, then again I stand around in woodland and fields for hours on end for a living. I think compared to Kubrick you are dealing with very different kinds of compositions, he generally deals in very direct very striking visuals where as Tarkgovsky I would say tends towards more subtle and complex compositions that actually reveal themselves via the slow camera movement.

    I think that assumes the Stalker himself is a source of ideal knowledge thoughout the film when really its more about his perspective on the zone being changed. He starts off believing that the Zones ideal purpose is to grant wishes and that in doing so he's making unhappy people happy but moves away from it by the end. As far as why Writer is favoured by the zone(if he is at all) perhaps because he ultimately helps the Stalker understand the true worth of the Zone even if he can't benefit from it himself?
     
  15. Bullitt68

    Bullitt68 Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    24,395
    Likes Received:
    2,370
    Meh. The medium ain't the message. The message is the message. That's why it's called the message.

    [​IMG]

    Plus...

    ...the key point for me is that, beyond the visuals on their own, Kubrick's visuals are always directly linked to the narrative that he's weaving. To Tarkovsky, narrative is just an excuse to shoot shit; it's an impediment, an inconvenience, a necessary evil. And it always shows.

    I don't see where that inference is coming from. My point was and is that Stalker was wrong.

    I never got the sense that anyone was favored by the Zone. What do you have in mind with that? What's the argument for Writer (or anyone else) being favored by the Zone?
     
  16. moreorless87

    moreorless87 Under Your Skin

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    30,228
    Likes Received:
    15,423
    Kubrick obviously does work strongly by tone but I'd agree this is a clear difference between them and I can definitely see someone preffering one directors work far more than the other. I would say though that Tarkovsky's message really does need to be in the medium, delivered directly in an intellectual fashion it would obviously lack much of its weight.
    The point was that the zone letting unhappy people though is a point that comes from the Stalker yet I think we see this view challenged as the film progresses to the degree he probably wouldn't agree with it by the end.

    Again the Stalker does clearly think Writer is favoured after he's not killed wandering off towards the house and he admits faking the drawing of lots to have him lead though the tunnel due to this. Whether he actually is or not is I'd agree definitely questionable.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2018 at 7:48 AM
  17. Bullitt68

    Bullitt68 Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    24,395
    Likes Received:
    2,370
    This thread is as dead as a doornail, Smalls. SMC, where you at?

    <209Bitch>

    <{vega}>

    @europe1, until you get reconnected to the Internet, I think the SMC is throwing in the towel on Tarkovsky.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Rimbaud82

    Rimbaud82 Brown Belt

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    4,429
    Likes Received:
    4,490
    Location:
    Belfast, Ireland.
    Been getting absolutely rinsed to celebrate submitting my dissertation recently, and then I have been moving house. I came in here to give my thoughts, but Bullitt's posts have frightened me, not least the utter dismissal of Solaris<6>

    So, as it's late and I am unable to delve into much detail, I'll wait till tomorrow lol. But I am not surprised that Tarkovsky isn't exactly a movie club favourite haha.
     
    sickc0d3r and MusterX like this.
  19. jei

    jei Danger Zone Admin Staff Member Forum Administrator Senior Moderator Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    28,538
    Likes Received:
    45,282
    Location:
    The Danger Zone
    sickc0d3r likes this.
  20. moreorless87

    moreorless87 Under Your Skin

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    30,228
    Likes Received:
    15,423
    Not to be too harsh but am I the only one who kind of thinks...

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018 at 4:08 AM
    Rimbaud82 likes this.

Share This Page